OBJECTIVE: To develop an international consensus definition and diagnostic criteria for GPP using the modified Delphi method.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: The rarity of GPP presents a challenge in acquiring comprehensive published clinical data necessary for developing standardized definition and criteria. Instead of relying on a literature search, 43 statements that comprehensively addressed the fundamental aspects of the definitions and diagnostic criteria for GPP were formulated based on expert reviews of 64 challenging GPP cases. These statements were presented to a panel of 33 global GPP experts for voting, discussion, and refinements in 2 virtual consensus meetings. Consensus during voting was defined as at least 80% agreement; the definition and diagnostic criteria were accepted by all panelists after voting and in-depth discussion.
FINDINGS: In the first and second modified Delphi round, 30 (91%) and 25 (76%) experts participated. In the initial Delphi round, consensus was achieved for 53% of the statements, leading to the approval of 23 statements that were utilized to develop the proposed definitions and diagnostic criteria for GPP. During the second Delphi round, the final definition established was, "Generalized Pustular Psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory disease characterized by cutaneous erythema and macroscopically visible sterile pustules." It can occur with or without systemic symptoms, other psoriasis types, and laboratory abnormalities. GPP may manifest as an acute form with widespread pustules or a subacute variant with an annular phenotype. The identified essential criterion was, "Macroscopically visible sterile pustules on erythematous base and not restricted to the acral region or within psoriatic plaques."
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The achievement of international consensus on the definition and diagnostic criteria for GPP underscores the importance of collaboration, innovative methodology, and expert engagement to address rare diseases. Although further validation is needed, these criteria can serve as a reference point for clinicians, researchers, and patients, which may contribute to more accurate diagnosis and improved management of GPP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Delphi method survey of expert opinion under the direction of the International Pediatric Otolaryngology Group (IPOG) was conducted to generate recommendations for the definition and management of first branchial cleft anomalies. The recommendations are the result of expert consensus and critical review of the literature.
RESULTS: Consensus recommendations include evaluation and diagnostic considerations for children with first branchial cleft anomalies as well as recommendations for surgical management. The current Work classification system was reviewed, and modifications were made to it to provide a more cogent categorization of these lesions.
CONCLUSION: The mission of the International Pediatric Otolaryngology Group (IPOG) is to develop expertise-based recommendations based on review of the literature for the management of pediatric otolaryngologic disorders. These consensus recommendations are aimed at improving care of children presenting with first branchial cleft anomalies. Here we present a revised classification system based on parotid gland involvement, with a focus on avoiding stratification based on germ layer, in addition to guidelines for management.
METHODS: Following a registered protocol, a modified e-Delphi study was applied over two rounds with a final consensus meeting. The threshold of consensus was set a priori at 75%. Agreed techniques were then categorized by four coders, according to behavioural learning theory, to sort techniques according to their mechanism of action.
RESULTS: The panel (n = 35) agreed on 42 DBS techniques from a total of 63 candidate labels and descriptions. Complete agreement was achieved regarding all labels and descriptions, while agreement was not achieved regarding distinctiveness for 17 techniques. In exploring underlying principles of learning, it became clear that multiple and differing principles may apply depending on the specific context and procedure in which the technique may be applied.
DISCUSSION: Experts agreed on what each DBS technique is, what label to use, and their description, but were less likely to agree on what distinguishes one technique from another. All techniques were describable but not comprehensively categorizable according to principles of learning. While objective consistency was not attained, greater clarity and consistency now exists. The resulting list of agreed terminology marks a significant foundation for future efforts towards understanding DBS techniques in research, education and clinical care.
METHODS: An iterative e-Delphi technique was employed as the method for gathering consensus on a range of topics found pertinent to affect orthodontic teaching and learning established through literature review. A total of ten expert panellists were recruited through a targeted invitation to the orthodontists from Malaysian public universities offering undergraduate dental education. The e-Delphi comprised of three rounds of anonymous e-survey. The consensus was sought for two open-ended and two closed-ended questions.
RESULTS: The response rates for all the three rounds were 100 per cent. The total number of questions responded by the participants in all the three rounds was forty-four. Round one achieved consensus on two closed-ended questions. Round two achieved a consensus on twenty-eight out of thirty-four (82.35%) questions with round three achieving a consensus on four out of six (66.66%) questions. A 70% consensus was considered as the minimum level of agreement for all the rounds. In total, consensus and agreement were achieved on two closed-ended questions and twenty-nine items from the open-ended questions.
CONCLUSION: The study was able to identify a range of issues affecting undergraduate orthodontic education with a good level of consensus using the e-Delphi technique highlighting the need for curriculum refinement. The study has, in addition, proposed tangible methods to enable such a change.
METHODS: A two-round online survey will be conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus meeting to identify a Core Domain Set. Participants will belong to one of two stakeholder groups: healthcare users with lived experience of tinnitus, and professionals with relevant clinical, commercial, or research experience.
DISCUSSION: This study will establish a Core Domain Set for the evaluation of electrical stimulation-based interventions for tinnitus via an e-Delphi study. The resulting Core Domain Set will act as a minimum standard for reporting in future clinical trials of electrical stimulation interventions for tinnitus. Standardisation will facilitate comparability of research findings.
METHODS: Twelve orthopedic surgeons participated in a modified Delphi panel consisting of 2 parts (each part comprising two rounds) from September-October 2018. Questionnaires were developed based on published evidence and guidelines on surgical techniques/materials. Questionnaires were administered via email (Round 1) or at a face-to-face meeting (subsequent rounds). Panelists ranked their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale. Consensus was achieved if ≥70% of panelists selected 4/5, or 1/2. Statements not reaching consensus in Round 1 were discussed and repeated or modified in Round 2. Statements not reaching consensus in Round 2 were excluded from the final consensus framework.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 13 goals of wound management. Panelists agreed on 38 challenges and 71 strategies addressing surgical techniques or wound closure materials for each tissue layer, and management strategies for blood loss reduction or deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in TKA. Statements on closure of capsular and skin layers, wound irrigation, dressings and drains required repeat voting or modification to reach consensus.
CONCLUSION: Consensus from Asia-Pacific TKA experts highlights the importance of wound management in optimizing TKA outcomes. The consensus framework provides a basis for future research, guidance to reduce variability in patient outcomes, and can help inform recommendations for wound management in TKA.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Delphi consensus technique was conducted online to review and evaluate the framework module. A panel of experts, including rehabilitation medicine physicians, occupational therapists, and clinical psychologists in Malaysia, was invited to participate in this study. For each round, the expert consensus was defined as more than 90% of the expert panel agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposed items.
RESULTS: A total of 33 practitioners completed the three Delphi rounds. 72.7% of the expert panel have been practising in their relevant clinical fields for more than six years (M = 10.67, SD = 5.68). In Round 1, 23% of the experts suggested that the framework module for attention training required further improvements, specifically in the language (M = 1.97, SD = 0.75) and instructions (M = 2.03, SD = 0.71) provided. In Round 2, 15% of the experts recommended additional changes in the instruction (M = 2.15, SD = 0.67) for attention training. Amendments made to the framework module in line with the recommendations provided by the experts resulted in a higher level of consensus, as 94% to 100% of the experts in Round 3 concluded the framework module was suitable and comprehensive for our breast cancer survivors. Following the key results, the objectives were practical, and the proposed approaches, strategies, and techniques for attention and memory training were feasible. The clarity of the instructions, procedures, verbatim transcripts, and timeframe further enhanced the efficacy and utility of the framework module.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found out that the cognitive intervention framework module for breast cancer survivors with cognitive impairment following chemotherapy can be successfully developed and feasible to be implemented using Delphi technique.
OBJECTIVES: Conduct a Delphi panel study to identify current evidence and gain advanced insights into GPP.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was used to identify published literature and develop statements categorized into four key domains: clinical course and flare definition; diagnosis; treatment goals; and holistic management. Statements were rated on a Likert scale by a panel of dermatologists in two rounds of online questionnaires; the threshold for consensus was agreement by ≥80%.
RESULTS: Twenty-one panellists reached consensus on 70.9%, 61.8%, 100.0% and 81.8% of statements in the 'clinical course and flare definition', 'diagnosis', 'treatment goals' and 'holistic management of GPP' domains, respectively. There was clear consensus on GPP being phenotypically, genetically and immunologically distinct from plaque psoriasis. Clinical course is highly variable, with an extensive range of complications. Clinical and histologic features supporting GPP diagnosis reached high levels of agreement, and although laboratory evaluations were considered helpful for diagnosis and monitoring disease severity, there was uncertainty around the value of individual tests. All acute and long-term treatment goals reached consensus, including rapid and sustained clearance of pustules, erythema, scaling and crust, clearance of skin lesions and prevention of new flares. Potential triggers, associated comorbidities and differential diagnoses achieved low rates of consensus, indicating that further evidence is needed.
CONCLUSIONS: Global consensus between dermatologists was reached on clinically meaningful goals for GPP treatment, on key features of GPP flares and on approaches for assessing disease severity and multidisciplinary management of patients. On this basis, we present a management algorithm for patients with GPP for use in clinical practice.
METHOD: A modified Delphi approach with three rounds of questionnaire was adopted. A total of 29 international experts from 11 countries were recruited for this study. Six domains with a total of 37 statements were examined, including anatomical definition; definition of intersphincteric dissection, intersphincteric resection (ISR) and ultra-low anterior resection (uLAR); indication for ISR; surgical technique of ISR; specimen description of ISR; and functional outcome assessment protocol.
RESULTS: Three rounds of questionnaire were performed (response rate 100%, 89.6%, 89.6%). Agreement (≥80%) reached standardization on 36 statements.
CONCLUSION: This study provides an international expert consensus-based definition and standardization of ISR. This is the first study standardizing terminology and definition of deep pelvis/anal canal anatomy from a surgical point of view. Intersphincteric dissection, ISR and uLAR were specifically defined for precise surgical description. Indication for ISR was determined by the rectal tumour's maximal radial infiltration (T stage) below the levator ani. A new surgical definition of T3isp was reached by consensus to define T3 low rectal tumours infiltrating the intersphincteric plane. A practical flowchart for surgical indication for uLAR/ISR/abdominoperineal resection was developed. A standardized ISR surgical technique and functional outcome assessment protocol was defined.
METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.
RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).
CONCLUSION: Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.
AIM: To develop an international taxonomy of standardized terms and activity definitions related to medication reviews.
METHOD: This was a three-stage Delphi-based consensus study with international medication review experts. A systematic review provided MR activity terms for the survey. Experts rated their consensus on each activity term and its definition on a Likert scale and provided written feedback. The consensus was 75% panel agreement. At each stage, consensus elements were retained, and feedback was used to revise definitions.
RESULTS: Seven experts were recruited for the study (response rate 15.2%) from four countries: the United Kingdom (n = 4), New Zealand (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), and Malaysia (n = 1). The following terms achieved consensus: the term Medication as a descriptor for MR terms; discontinue medication, start medication, dose increase, dose decrease, dosage form change, and medication safety and efficacy monitor to describe MR activity; Educate to describe the delivery of healthcare professionals and patients/carers education.
CONCLUSION: Standardized medication review activity terms and definitions have been selected for universal adoption in all future MR research to facilitate a meaningful comparison of process evaluations within different settings.
DESIGN: This work was conducted using a modified Delphi consensus process. Initial statements were developed by the International Standards and Guidelines for Quality Safe Surgery and Anesthesia Working Group of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma and Anesthesia Care (G4 Alliance) and the International Society of Surgery based on previously published literature and clinical expertise. The Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies framework was applied.
SETTING: The Working Group convened in Suva, Fiji for a meeting hosted by the Ministry of Health and Medical Services to develop the initial statements. Local experts were invited to participate. The modified Delphi process was conducted through an electronically administered anonymised survey.
PARTICIPANTS: Expert LMIC surgeons were nominated for participation in the modified Delphi process based on criteria developed by the Working Group.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The consensus panel voted on statements regarding the organisation of surgical services, principles for scale-up and prioritisation of scale-up. Statements reached consensus if there was ≥80% agreement among participants.
RESULTS: Fifty-three nominated experts from 27 LMICs voted on 27 statements in two rounds. Ultimately, 26 statements reached consensus and comprise the current recommendations. The statements covered three major themes: which surgical services should be decentralised or regionalised; how the implementation of these services should be prioritised; and principles to guide LMIC governments and international visiting teams in scaling up safe, accessible and affordable surgical care.
CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations represent the first step towards the development of international guidelines for the scaling up of surgical services in LMICs. They constitute the best available basis for policymaking, planning and allocation of resources for strengthening surgical systems.
METHODS: Eleven experienced cardiologists from across the Asia-Pacific countries participated in two rounds of the survey. In the first round, experts were asked to rate agreement/disagreement with 35 statements across seven domains regarding the use of β-blockers for treating hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery diseases, co-morbidities, as well as their safety profile, usage pattern, and pharmacokinetic variability. A consensus for a statement could be reached with >70% agreement.
RESULTS: Except for seven statements, all attained consensus in the first round. In the second round that was conducted virtually, the experts re-appraised their ratings for the seven statements along with a critical appraisal of two additional statements that were suggested by experts in the preceding round. At the end of the second round, the final version included 36 statements (34 original statements, two statements suggested by experts, and the omission of one statement that did not attain consensus). The final version of statements in the second round was disseminated among experts for their approval followed by manuscript development.
CONCLUSION: Attainment of consensus for almost all statements reconfirms the clinical benefits of β-blockers, particularly β1-selective blockers for the entire spectrum of cardiovascular diseases.